This has been rehashed for maybe five million, two hundred and seventy-three thousand, and six hundred, twenty-eight times. I don't understand what is so difficult about the concept.
In sports it is called play the ball, not the man.
Here it is critique the work, not the writer.
And when you don't agree with the previous critique, the method of winning hearts and influencing people is to give an even BETTER critique pointing out YOUR points of view and listing why YOUR point of view is valid. You don't need to insult other people who have taken the time to critique. If the only way your critique can have any merit is to defame another poster, your critique can't stand the scrutiny test.
When you disagree with someone or something, you don't need to denigrate your opponent. In fact, that weakens your premise. It screams: Mine is only good if I can weaken the previous offering.
If your critique has merit, it has merit. Not because you are smarter, wiser, better employed, or with more letters after your name. If your critique has any merit, it is because it is a good critique.
There are many of us who came here to learn. I certainly did. I can't take as serious, any argument presented in a "contest" manner. Mine is better than [fill in the name of the opponent]. No. It isn't.
Yours is either better because it is a clearer, better fit with reality or it isn't. When the only way you can make a point is to make an enemy, you need to re-examine your strategy. That isn't a way to get along in the world at large. No man is an island [someone famous said that].
* all "you" words here are generic you, not a particular person.
** respect is earned, never granted.
